Is This The Final Nail In The Coffin For...
News1 min ago
Napier Barracks Migrants
the judge knows these so called migrants are not migrants but criminals, and all young men
of middle eastern backgrounds? what did one criminal say, food bad and no internet!...really
then why not ask to stay in france..or the countries they traveled through to get to france?
they all must be war torn erm.
https:/
of middle eastern backgrounds? what did one criminal say, food bad and no internet!...really
then why not ask to stay in france..or the countries they traveled through to get to france?
they all must be war torn erm.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//fender, can you support your assertion?//
I'll save fender the trouble: The UN convention on the Status of Refugees (1951), Article 31:
ARTICLE 31. REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to
the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
Note "...coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1". People arriving from France are not under such a threat.
Those arriving from France are illegal immigrants, plain and simple, and are liable to penalties. The UK is currently under an invasion by such people. The answer to it is to prevent their entry, by force if necessary, into UK territorial waters. They are perfectly safe in France and under no threat. The UK is their "destination of choice" but the asylum system does not afford them that choice. Time to stop fannying around - in fact that time passed long ago.
I'll save fender the trouble: The UN convention on the Status of Refugees (1951), Article 31:
ARTICLE 31. REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to
the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
Note "...coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1". People arriving from France are not under such a threat.
Those arriving from France are illegal immigrants, plain and simple, and are liable to penalties. The UK is currently under an invasion by such people. The answer to it is to prevent their entry, by force if necessary, into UK territorial waters. They are perfectly safe in France and under no threat. The UK is their "destination of choice" but the asylum system does not afford them that choice. Time to stop fannying around - in fact that time passed long ago.
You can repeat that till the cows come home but the bleeding liberal hearts here won't have it. To them these people, having trekked the length of Europe thanks to the ridiculous Schengen agreement, then attempted to cross the channel in flimsy boats, are heroes, and should be welcomed with open arms and fêted.
NJ, if you look at part 2 in this document from the House of Commons Library, you'll see that isn't the case.
https:/
https:/
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.